View methods side by side.
Choose up to four methods. Add them using the search and share the comparison by copying its link.
| Criterion |  Facilitation Expectation Mapping |  Delivery RAID Log |  Growth A/B Testing |  Product Discovery Assumption Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Purposedifferent | When roles, interfaces, or projects fail because of differing expectations, Expectation Mapping surfaces these differences. It shows what each side takes for granted and where the pictures diverge. | Helps clarify scope, sequence, and delivery flow in concrete terms. It makes work, boundaries, and order steerable. The result is captured as a RAID Log and a source for status reporting. | When two variants compete, discussions quickly decide by taste rather than effect. A/B Testing checks behavior under controlled conditions and separates real improvement from chance or expectation effects. | When assumptions still sit unordered in the room, it weighs uncertainty against leverage. It makes visible which hypotheses should be checked first. |
Complexitydifferent | Low | Low | High | Medium |
Timedifferent | 45-90 min | 30 min Setup, dann laufend | 1-4 Wochen | 45-60 min |
Participantsdifferent | 3-12 | 1-3 maintaining, briefing for everyone | 1-6 | 2-8 |
Formatdifferent | Workshop | Async | Async | Workshop + async |
Outputdifferent | Expectation Map, Alignment Notes, Agreements | RAID Log, Status Report Source | Experiment results, Decision log, Learning summary | Assumption map, Test backlog, Risk ranking |
Tagsno overlap | AlignmentStakeholdersTeam | RiskTrackingStakeholdersGovernance | ExperimentsGrowthAnalyticsValidation | AssumptionsRiskExperimentsValidation |